New J of 9/11 Studies Paper

[RedIbis]

Lace up your debunking boots, this is a fairly brief analysis that REFUTES Woods' and Morgan's space beam theories. Instead, calculations are presented to conclude:

"Calculations using a range of estimates from observations show the destruction from these explosions range up to 1/4 mile or more in most directions. These strongly enhance the evidence presented in previous studies, such the photo in Figure 1 which shows the rapidly expanding huge dust clouds from the towers resulting from massive pulverization of the non-metallic parts of the towers in mid-air, along with hundreds of pieces of metal cladding and beams flying through the air on their rim. All of them provide dramatic examples of the devastation of the explosions in the World Trade
Center towers 6 years ago."

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nsEvidence.pdf

[Rahne Everson]

Gee, it's not like two 110 story building collapsing could do any of that, no sir.

[Gravy]

Oh. My. God. Stupidest Journal of 9/11 Stundies paper yet? It's certainly up there. What horrible incompetents these people are.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Oh. My. God. Stupidest Journal of 9/11 Stundies paper yet? It's certainly up there. What horrible incompetents these people are.

Your specificity, reasoning and logic are hard to argue with. At least you didn't disappoint by relying on nothing but a cheap ad hom attack. Well done.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

*yawn*

Let us know when it gets published in a reputable journal.

[einsteen]

I'm sure it is already stupid before a single line has been recalculated.
And about peer reviewing, ask your physics bozos and let them review it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Conspiracists will do anything, I mean anything, to press their issues. If they want to take the Government to court without any evidence then why don't they just do it and be done with? What's taking them so long to accomplish this?

I would just die laughing when they do take the Government to court and then we'll see who are the clowns in the "circus" courtroom.

[Redtail]

Quote:

Figures 5 and 6 show these high-speed squibs shot out material up to 1/4 mile or more from the towers. This ejection distance xhit is not all that sensitive to the height of origin: raising or lowereing the ejection height by over 800 feet changes xhit by less than 500 feet for the
low resistivty side, and just over 200 feet on the high resistivity side.

So the charges were powerful enough for the above mentioned to happen, yet were so quiet that none of the recording devices around that day picked anything that sounded like CD charges?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I'm sure it is already stupid before a single line has been recalculated.

You got it!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Redtail

So the charges were powerful enough for the above mentioned to happen, yet were so quiet that none of the recording devices around that day picked anything that sounded like CD charges?

Not to mention that these alleged explosives powerful enough to eject material 1/4 of a mile outward didn't even produce any vibrations that could be detected by the same seismographs that picked up the plane impacts...

[Mr. Skinny]

Dang, my computer seems to hate pdf documents at the moment.

Do they state what kind of weapon it supposedly is?

ETA: From the quote in the OP, they don't seem to state what their theory is as to what weapon/fairy dust brought down the towers.

[T.A.M.]

I love how the truthers HATE the concept of peer review...because they know it is something none of their "scientists/experts" will ever be successful at passing.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

If this is the guy, he seems to be legit, in terms of actually existing and being a scientist...even leaves you with his email...

http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe/

Seems to be primarily an Astronomer.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Seems he has some research experience in an area that might qualify him to refute the no-planer Space Beam theories...

Quote:

C L Grabbe, Space Weapons and the Strategic Defense Initiative (Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1991)

TAM

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Seems he has some research experience in an area that might qualify him to refute the no-planer Space Beam theories...

TAM

There is a previous thread about him here, with video.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80357

[T.A.M.]

Thanks for the link...

Well he seems to be full blown truther, which makes me doubt anything he has to say, but according to his home page (which of course, could be along the lines of Torin Wolf in terms of exaggerated credentials), he does seem to have some knowledge/expertese that might make him qualified to denounce/refute the "Beam Weapons".

TAM

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Not to mention that these alleged explosives powerful enough to eject material 1/4 of a mile outward didn't even produce any vibrations that could be detected by the same seismographs that picked up the plane impacts...

You really have to explain the connection you are implying.

Are you saying an explosive in the upper stories would provide a similar effect on the building's lower levels as the aircraft impact at those upper stories?

Are you equating the aircraft energy with an explosive needed to take out a beam?

I thought I read where Crockett Grabbe says the high speed ejections were 1/3 of the width of the towers or approximately 70 feet from the tower perimeter. I think the remaining distance the material traveled was due to trajectory since it strated out at a great height not its initial force.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by realcddeal

You really have to explain the connection you are implying.

Are you saying an explosive in the upper stories would provide a similar effect on the building's lower levels as the aircraft impact at those upper stories?

Are you equating the aircraft energy with an explosive needed to take out a beam?

I thought I read where Crockett Grabbe says the high speed ejections were 1/3 of the width of the towers or approximately 70 feet from the tower perimeter. I think the remaining distance the material traveled was due to trajectory since it strated out at a great height not its initial force.

Please read the "paper", specifically the quote in post #8 of this thread, then get back to us.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Please read the "paper", specifically the quote in post #8 of this thread, then get back to us.

There's a strong possibility that "realcddeal" is Mr. Grabbe. But I could be wrong, if I'm not mistaken there are two such papers on the JONES that dispute the space-beam theories. It's not hard to do, I've done it here, myself.

Whomever assembled that... pamphlet, it's ruddy awful. Doesn't even resemble a proper whitepaper.

One of the key arguments against is that, if explosives were really to blame, drag works both ways in such a case. A smaller object will have a lower ballistic coefficient, and thus will be more affected by aerodynamic drag and differential pressure. This means, yes, a larger object with the same initial velocity will fly farther than a smaller object, but they don't start with the same initial velocity, if they're driven by explosives.

If the propulsion is caused by explosives, the smaller object will be accelerated much, much more than the larger one, by the same physics, and as a result we would see the smaller objects flying farther. Taking all other effects into account, there will be a "sweet spot" at extreme range where an intermediate-sized object, probably in the centimeter range, travels the farthest -- but this doesn't match what we saw at all.

If, on the other hand, the ejection is gravity-driven, then all pieces will have the same velocity, by virtue of falling the same distance or all being part of the same more-or-less cohesive collapse front until ejection. In this scenario, the larger pieces will fly farther, the larger the better. Oddly enough, this is exactly what we see, apart from pieces so small that they are effectively wind-borne and no longer ballistic in the first place.

This paper is just another poke in the eye for Dr. Jones and the "Scholars."

[LashL]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

This paper is just another poke in the eye for Dr. Jones and the "Scholars."

Indeed. Yet, the "Scholars" don't even have enough sense to be embarrassed by such pathetic "scholarship" and that is actually sad.






Well, okay, it would be sad if it weren't so uproariously funny.

[Gravy]

realcddeal isn't Crockett Grabbe, for what it's worth.

[R.Mackey]

Good to know.

For what it's worth, I ran some calculations on how far a 100 kg blast of TNT would be expected to throw a 3m column section, originally located 15m from the blast (anything closer would probably destroy it). It works out to an initial velocity of only about 5 meters per second. If ejected in this fashion from the top of the Towers, this means a maximum distance of under 50 meters away from the footprint.

So, if Mr. Grabbe is right, we're talking about really, really big explosives. Funny that nobody saw them, including Protec and the LDEO.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Good to know.

For what it's worth, I ran some calculations on how far a 100 kg blast of TNT would be expected to throw a 3m column section, originally located 15m from the blast (anything closer would probably destroy it). It works out to an initial velocity of only about 5 meters per second. If ejected in this fashion from the top of the Towers, this means a maximum distance of under 50 meters away from the footprint.

So, if Mr. Grabbe is right, we're talking about really, really big explosives. Funny that nobody saw them, including Protec and the LDEO.

And you're talking only about the force to move the column, not to sever it from its connections, right?

[R.Mackey]

Yup. I'm assuming the column was free-standing and unattached when the pressure wave hits.

Much harder to estimate how it behaves if the explosive shears it off. There would probably be some elastic effect, but surely being hard-mounted would dissipate the blast, not actually make it fly farther.

[uk_dave]

You don't suppose that going through life with a name like "Crockett Grabbe" could have a profound psychological impact on a person?

Just sayin'....

[timhau]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I love how the truthers HATE the concept of peer review...

Hey, I'm sure the journal uses peer review. Nutters submit papers, other nutters review them.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

You don't suppose that going through life with a name like "Crockett Grabbe" could have a profound psychological impact on a person?

Just sayin'....

I love the name. It may even be better than Buster Crabbe.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

You don't suppose that going through life with a name like "Crockett Grabbe" could have a profound psychological impact on a person?

Just sayin'....

I have to admit, the first thing I thought when I saw the guy's name was, "Jesus, that poor guy had cruel parents."


(But he also goes by another name of his own choosing, which isn't a whole lot better, so.. who knows?)

In any event, his "paper" is complete crap and utterly meaningless; entirely in keeping with the pseudo-scholars' psuedo journal. Sad, no matter how you dissect it.

[DarkMagician]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Seems he has some research experience in an area that might qualify him to refute the no-planer Space Beam theories...

TAM

Oh god, he's being taught in IOWA.

I'm not drinking the water for a couple of weeks.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by einsteen

I'm sure it is already stupid before a single line has been recalculated.
And about peer reviewing, ask your physics bozos and let them review it.

Physics Bozo is on the case!!!!

OK, peer review coming.

The paper makes the assertion that certain photographs of the WTC collapse prove that explosions were responsible for the ejection of debris, but advances no evidence for the assertion. Pictures of damaged cars are produced more to refute the beam weapon theory than to promote the explosives theory; the damage is characterised as due to hot and possibly corrosive debris, but no evidence is advanced that this debris was not ejected as a result of glancing collisions in the collapse of the towers, or that the heating of the debris was not a result of the extensive pre-collapse fires.

In discussion of the "squibs", the key assertion that "overpressure is created by explosions" is not justified. The discussion of the radial distribution of debris is superfluous, as the ejection velocity has already been deduced from videos, and the comment that "it is likely that explosions are also occurring after the growing dust cloud envelopes the area" is pure speculation unsupported by evidence.

In summary, this paper is an attempt at proof by assertion, and no evidence is advanced to support its central thesis. Einsteen's characterisation of the paper as "already stupid before a single line has been recalculated" is a highly perceptive and accurate summary of the paper.

Refused for publication. Re-submission is not advised.

Dave

[Revolutionary91]

I love it when extremely qualified internet posters, such as tour guides, dismiss physicists papers without even reading them.

[Unsecured Coins]

I love it when people who still have to ask mom to stay up past 11 on a school night try to act like they're the reason the earth is still spinning.

[Alferd_Packer]

What is it with the university of Iowa?

Does Crokett do bong hits with Derrick Grimer?

[Unsecured Coins]

I thought Crokett worked with Tubbs....

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

I love it when extremely qualified internet posters, such as tour guides, dismiss physicists papers without even reading them.

Yes a tour guide that your entire movement is afraid do bebate!!!

TAM

[NDBoston]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

I love it when extremely qualified internet posters, such as tour guides, dismiss physicists papers without even reading them.

You're 15 and seem to be a bright kid. I'm imploring you to do the following.

Call an engineering firm in your area and listen to a structural engineer. Perhaps you have a local college with a decent engineering department. Take the time to talk to people who actually know what they're talking about. It doesn't matter what a theology professor or former Friendly's worker thinks.

Why do I ask you this? I was actually at 7WTC for three years including 9-11. I experienced things that you can't see on You Tube or staring at pictures.

I felt the debris pounding the building on 9-11 and was forced to go out the back because of it. I was on almost every floor SSB had in my role on a daily basis and never saw any construction work being done.

Did you know 3 floors had people on it 24x 7 because they were trading floors? Most people were on there on the weekends too because of the pressures of the job. they paid us well but everyone had to bust their asses Did you know we were packed in like sardines after Salomon/Smith Barney merger? You Tube won't tell you that.

Guess what explanation I receive from "truthers". The building was pre-wired. PRE-WIRED!

Stop using 9-11 truth as a way of finding an identity and use the critical thinking skills I think you have. This isn't a joke for me. My best friend died that day and if I thought for even a second there was a chance of government involvement, I would be the first one storming the White House.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

I love it when extremely qualified internet posters, such as tour guides, dismiss physicists papers without even reading them.

How do you feel when physicists with a quarter of a century's professional experience dismiss them after having read them?

Dave

[Sabrina]

Originally Posted by NDBoston

You're 15 and seem to be a bright kid. I'm imploring you to do the following.

Call an engineering firm in your area and listen to a structural engineer. Perhaps you have a local college with a decent engineering department. Take the time to talk to people who actually know what they're talking about. It doesn't matter what a theology professor or former Friendly's worker thinks.

Why do I ask you this? I was actually at 7WTC for three years including 9-11. I experienced things that you can't see on You Tube or staring at pictures.

I felt the debris pounding the building on 9-11 and was forced to go out the back because of it. I was on almost every floor SSB had in my role on a daily basis and never saw any construction work being done.

Did you know 3 floors had people on it 24x 7 because they were trading floors? Most people were on there on the weekends too because of the pressures of the job. they paid us well but everyone had to bust their asses Did you know we were packed in like sardines after Salomon/Smith Barney merger? You Tube won't tell you that.

Guess what explanation I receive from "truthers". The building was pre-wired. PRE-WIRED!

Stop using 9-11 truth as a way of finding an identity and use the critical thinking skills I think you have. This isn't a joke for me. My best friend died that day and if I thought for even a second there was a chance of government involvement, I would be the first one storming the White House.

*applauds vigorously* Nothing more need be said.

[Revolutionary91]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Yes a tour guide that your entire movement is afraid do bebate!!!

TAM

Well, except that Jason and Dylan debated him, as did Fetzer. He was set to do the National 911 debate but nobody else from the OCT side would do it. Nobody is afraid to debate Gravy.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary91

Well, except that Jason and Dylan debated him, as did Fetzer. He was set to do the National 911 debate but nobody else from the OCT side would do it. Nobody is afraid to debate Gravy.

not afraid to do it once, but they will not ever do it again

they were destroyed